Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12-14, 17-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Mersseman et al. (2023/0316782) in view of Lambert et al. (2019/0012552).
Regarding claim 1, de Mersseman (referred as Mersseman from hereon) discloses a hidden camera subsystem (Fig. 5 and par. 63) that monitors a driver of a vehicle, comprising:
a dashboard (504) disposed in the vehicle, wherein the dashboard establishes a lower sight line of the driver (see Fig. 5);
a camera sensor (note 132 in par. 63) with a field-of-view and being disposed below the lower sight line such that the camera sensor is hidden from the driver by the dashboard, wherein the camera sensor is operational to generate a sensed video signal of a scene within the field-of-view;
a reflector disposed above the lower sight line and oriented to direct the field-of-view of the camera sensor to include a head of the driver in the scene (note windshield 508 in Fig. 5); wherein the reflector reflects infrared light at a plurality of polarization axes (note par. 66); and
a first electronic control unit operational to receive the sensed video signal and monitor the driver in response to the head of the driver within the sensed video signal (Fig. 3); and
one or more illuminators in communication with the first electronic control unit and operational to generate an illumination light (note IR light source 134 in par. 46), wherein the illumination light is redirected by the reflector and shines on the scene (par. 66), wherein a ray of light which intersects a center of an eye box of the driver and a windscreen of the vehicle is a mirror angle of an axis of the camera sensor (note the angle of incidence 904 in Fig. 9 is always equals to the angle of reflection; the reflected light intersects both the driver eye box and the windshield 508).
Mersseman does not disclose the monitoring includes an open/closed status of two eyelids of the driver as claimed.
Lambert, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a driver’s eyelid monitoring system (par. 2, 33, 34). By monitoring the eyes of the drivers, the alertness state of the driver can be ascertained (par. 33 and 34).
Therefore, in view of Lambert and in order to further ascertain the alert state of the driver in Mersseman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Lambert into Mersseman to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Mersseman discloses a filter in front of the camera sensor has a particular polarization axis (note filter on 804 in par. 68); and the reflector reflects visible light to match the particular polarization axis (note par. 68).
Regarding claim 4, Mersseman discloses the reflector is a portion of the windscreen of the vehicle (note par. 75).
Regarding claim 5, Mersseman discloses the reflector is separate from the windscreen of the vehicle (note Fig. 11 in par. 72).
Regarding claim 6, Mersseman discloses the reflector has a curved shape (note the curved windshield 508 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Mersseman does not disclose that the scene in the sensed video signal is warped by the curved shape of the reflector; and the first electronic control unit is further operational to dewarp the scene in the sensed video signal. The examiner takes Official Notice that using dewarp means to dewarp a curve surface distorted image, such as fisheye lens, is well known in the art. The dewarp means enables the distorted image to be restored to its normal image. Therefore, if fisheye lens or wide angle lens distortion exists in Mersseman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the well known dewarp means into Mersseman so that the distorted image could be corrected.
Regarding claim 8, Mersseman discloses that the reflector has a transmissivity that passes environmental light entering the vehicle through a windscreen to reach the driver at a perceptible amplitude (note Fig. 9 and par. 69 and 70).
Regarding claim 9, Mersseman does not disclose that an opaque material disposed between the reflector and a windscreen of the vehicle as claimed. The examiner takes Official Notice that using opaque material disposed between the reflector and the windshield is well known in the art. For instance, the adhesive for the bonding the reflector at the periphery onto the windshield can be made of any known bonding means, such as double sided tapes or white or black glues or caulk. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ different bonding means to bond the reflector onto the windshield. The bonding means selection would have been a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 10, Mersseman does not disclose that the reflector and the opaque material are laterally offset from the driver such that a road on which the vehicle sits is visible to the driver looking straight ahead. The placement of the reflector on the offset manner as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to avoid view obstruction to the driver. Thus, placement of the reflector would have been an obvious design choice and would have been very obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Mersseman discloses the dashboard has a cavity and the camera sensor is disposed in the cavity (note Fig. 5 and 8).
Regarding claim 13, Mersseman discloses the first electronic control unit is operational to generate output data in one or more control signals based on the sensed video signal (note Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Mersseman discloses a display subsystem in communication with the first electronic control unit and operational to generate a plurality of visible images in response to the output data received in the one or more control signals (note par. 49).
Regarding claims 17-19, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, Mersseman discloses a second electronic control unit operational to monitor one or more conditions of the driver based on the sensed video signal (note 320 and 324 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Mersseman discloses the reflector reflects visible light at all polarization axes (note par. 66).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Mersseman does not teach or suggest the reflector that reflects infrared light at a plurality axis, the examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection above, the examiner disagrees. In paragraph 66, Mersseman clearly states that the windshield 508 may reflect the light from the IR light source 134 onto the driver. The windshield 508 as shown in Fig. 5 and 6 does not include IR reflective film. Therefore, as a conventional glass windshield, the windshield 508 inherently reflects all lights without any polarization modification.
Concerning applicant’s argument that Mersseman does not disclose one or more illuminators in communication with the first electronic control unit and operational to generate an illumination light, wherein the illumination light is reflected by the reflector and shines on the scene as claimed, the examiner disagree. Mersseman states the following:
The IR light source 134 may output light through an aperture in the top surface of the dashboard 504 onto the windshield 508. An example aperture 604 is shown in FIG. 6, which is a front perspective view of an example vehicle. Paragraph 65
The windshield 508 may reflect the light from the IR light source 134 onto the driver. Paragraph 66.
These statements clearly meet the reflection limitation as claimed.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Mersseman does not disclose a ray of light which intersects a center of an eye box of the driver and a windscreen of the vehicle is a mirror angle of an axis of the camera sensor, the examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection above, Mersseman discloses that the angle of incidence 904 in Fig. 9 is always equals to the angle of reflection; the reflected light intersects both the driver eye box and the windshield 508. The reflection angle is a mirror angle of the incidence angle, which is 54 degree. The incidence angle is measured from the optical axis 712 of the camera sensor 132. As a result, the claimed limitation is met by Mersseman. See illustration below.
PNG
media_image1.png
652
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of forgoing arguments, it is clear that applicant fails to overcome Mersseman. As a result, the prior art rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
